NZ Climate ‘Science’ Coalition Lies About Temperature Readings

Here we go again, as the climate denial front group called the “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition” tries to cash in on the stolen CRU email story, by floating another false claim about temperature readings — a claim dutifully circulated by dozens of right wing blogs, of course, with no fact checking.

New Zealand may have its own “Climategate”, including manipulation of temperature readings, according to a combined research project undertaken by members of the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. The researchers claim that temperature readings from seven weather stations throughout New Zealand have been adjusted to show a higher degree of warming than is justified by a study of the original raw data.

Spokesman for the group, Richard Treadgold, said that recent claims that New Zealand is warming have been proved wrong. “Official information clearly shows that temperatures in New Zealand have actually been remarkably stable since 1850. We got the data from the online National Climate Database maintained by NIWA and we made our own graph, which we compared with theirs. The results are shocking.”

Not only is this claim entirely false, the NZ Climate Science Coalition knows that it’s false — because they’ve tried to pull this nonsense before and were exposed. There’s no excuse for this kind of deliberate dishonesty.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth. But they keep on digging.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

Yes there is. Another station move.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2 – it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

The real disgrace here is that the NZ CSC and Richard Treadgold have published a piece of incompetent research and are either too ignorant to notice or are deliberately attempting to mislead the press and public. They have pushed it to the media and the more credulous blogs, and attempted to smear a respected scientist.

Read the whole sorry story. This is a perfect example of the dishonest claims of the climate denial industry. They’re lying to you.

The best part of this is that Drudge had it linked along with other articles about the "controversy". Then when he read beyond the headline and realized it wasn't what he wanted, he took it down. Hahaha

The best part of this is that Drudge had it linked along with other articles about the "controversy". Then when he read beyond the headline and realized it wasn't what he wanted, he took it down. Hahaha

Well, at least that's better than riding a failed story down in flames. Not much better, though. Drudge should have checked his facts before posting.

Look again at Treadgold’s graph. He makes no distinction between the blue and green lines — he just joins them up. Temps before the mid-20s were recorded at Thorndon, near sea level, but then the recording station moved to Kelburn at 125 m above sea level. It’s pretty basic meteorology that temperatures fall as you move above sea level, so the two stations are not directly comparable. Treadgold affects not to know this… But there’s no need to throw out all the old data, you can apply a correction.

I think the NZ CSC is working on the "throw enough mud" principle. Teh stupid is as strong down here as anywhere else.

Sadly, that's not a stupid tactic. It usually works. Most of the time when people see someone or something have that much mud flung at them, they assume that the target is dirty. So its a nasty tactic, but an effective one.

Well now that data has been called into question.
The only way to know who is telling the truth is a comprehensive unbiased investigation.
Then let the chips fall where they may.

Clearly, from the emails divulged, there was an enormous effort to not comply with Freedom of Information requests for that data. That does not inspire confidence.
It all needs to be looked at outside of the hands of those with a vested interest in the outcome.

Well now that data has been called into question.
The only way to know who is telling the truth is a comprehensive unbiased investigation.
Then let the chips fall where they may.

Clearly, from the emails divulged, there was an enormous effort to not comply with Freedom of Information requests for that data. That does not inspire confidence.
It all needs to be looked at outside of the hands of those with a vested interest in the outcome.

That would actually be nobody. Given the implications of major climate change, we all have a vested interest in stopping AGW.

"With more carbon dioxide available to plants, photosynthesis is easier and plants can make the same amount of food for themselves without having to put so much protein in their leaves," said Currano, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University and the Smithsonian Institution.

Plants in a high CO2 environment increase their plant mass by 20 to 25%. Yields of some crops can be increased by up to 33%. This is the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations over Earth normal. Still higher concentrations can be expected to yield still better results.

These benefits occur only if the nutrient levels and the amount of water available also increase. CO2 alone does very little good. Consequently, to take advantage of a higher CO2 concentration, we must supply more water and bring in more nutrients (such as nitrogen).

As a plant's production of starch from CO2 increases, it seems to reach some sort of saturation point. It reaches a point where it can no longer take advantage of the greater abundance of CO2.

Note: high conentrations of CO2 allows the plant to use water more efficiently.

In all that paints a pretty complicated picture of how increased CO2 will affect us in the big picture.

"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
[Link: www.financialpost.com...]

If you support Global Warming theory, then you should support an outside investigation, because, hopefully, the charlatans, whoever they are, will be exposed.

"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
[Link: www.financialpost.com...]

If you support Global Warming theory, then you should support an outside investigation, because, hopefully, the charlatans, whoever they are, will be exposed.

You said there was an "enormous effort" to avoid FOIA requests. How does one email written in anger qualify as an "enormous effort?"

Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on-the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental calamity, the investigation found.

SNIP

Powerful corporations are fielding multinational efforts to influence the debate, such as Peabody Coal, the world’s largest coal company, in Australia and the United States; and oil giant Exxon Mobil in Canada, the European Union, and the United States. Although largely operating at a national level, opponents of a strong climate change treaty are employing similar fear tactics worldwide, including threats of massive blackouts and job losses.

Your articles are not contradictory. The first one doesn't say insects will increase. It says the amount insects will eat will increase. More CO2 = Plants work less hard to grow = less nutrients when eaten = insects/herbivores need to eat more.

Second article says insects find it hard to reproduce in a hotter environment.

If you had the slightest bit of logical ability, you would see why these are not contradictory or call into question the theory of AGW.

1. CO2 will not always cause global warming. Any temp increase may be drowned out by other factors leading to a higher CO2 yet the same/cooler temperatures.

2. Eating more and reproducing less are hardly contradictory. See if you can find out how.

I've noticed however, that instead of arguing, you choose to link to sites you could just barely categorize as "news" sites. No commentary by you, no argument laid out, just a bunch of links that make your bias clear and your position stupid.

I guess when you don't really HAVE evidence or data or an argument that's all you can do though.

I noticed that earlier today. It seems as though it's a tactic to find the most absurd looking AGW linked study being used to smear AGW science. So you'll see the links with no comments or excerpts and they will read something like "AGW said to cause decrease math skills in children" and so on.

You said there was an "enormous effort" to avoid FOIA requests. How does one email written in anger qualify as an "enormous effort?"

There are also other references to coordinate a deletion of emails. There may ( or may not) be more. At last count, per some media, there are now over 4000 documents. I certainly have not read all.

- From: Phil Jones, May 29, 2008

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don 't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

That all smacks of collusion to evade the law and I do wonder if in fact it crossed the line to illegality.
In any event, all I am saying is that an outside investigation into ALL of this seems to be the only way to clear the air.

There are also other references to coordinate a deletion of emails. There may ( or may not) be more. At last count, per some media, there are now over 4000 documents. I certainly have not read all.

- From: Phil Jones, May 29, 2008

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don 't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

That all smacks of collusion to evade the law and I do wonder if in fact it crossed the line to illegality.
In any event, all I am saying is that an outside investigation into ALL of this seems to be the only way to clear the air.

OK, that's TWO emails that you think are really really bad, even though the one about deleting emails is completely without context.

Sorry CJ, this time your avoiding some troubling facts. If you haven't go look at the code (I know your skilled in this area and you will see how bad this PhD quality code is to real SW that can endanger people). For those of us who stood by you on Rathergate, while your credibility was attacked by folks who don't know why you made sense, you should realize there are some of us just as insightful and trained to detect bad assumptions, questionable massaging, unfounded theories on global climate.

The fact is the raw data across the globe (even the CRU raw temps) don't show runaway global warming. It's not just the emails (which you have been cherry picking, avoiding the hard ones where people tell others to illegally destroy data). It's the code with hard coded overwrites. It is the deletion of data that tells a contradictory story, of cutting off the picture when it looks bad.

Honestly, I thought much higher of you than this.

BTW, to disagree with global warming does not make you a Palinista or Right winger. They can be right for the wrong reasons. Just like loving you family doesn't make you an evil right winger - something else they have in common with all of us.

Whatever your issues forget them and look at the code and the data objectively. And realize Jones, Mann et al were persecuting people with differing theories and opinions. They were the ones acting like right wing purists - not us independents who just happen to be able to detect hundreds of problems with the current theories and the methods they use to hide the full picture.

If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

The reason they do not want to release the raw data is because interpreting the tree ring cores is a pretty exotic and specialized field. If they give the deniers all of their raw data you will just end up with a lot of articles like the one this thread is about. Those without the knowledge or experience to properly correct and interpret the data will be making claims that it shows different results to them than what has been reported by CRU.

I understand why they don't want to share raw, uncorrected, and uninterpreted data. When peer reviewed articles are published they explain via footnote any correction factors that have been applied to the data, the fact it has been altered from it's raw state is not a secret.

They really aren't hiding anything because they want to horde it to themselves. They are keeping the raw field data out of the hands of those that would misuse it or simply lie about it for personal and political gain.

Two emails from the Director of CRU involving more than a few people.
Sorry Charles, if you don't see that there is something wrong in the conduct of these scientists, then that is your prerogative.
To latch onto subjective adjective ( "enormous") doesn't clear up the real problem which is, who is lying and distorting data.

And by the way, the second email about deletion...was in reference to "AR4".
There is context. AR4 is: [Link: www.ipcc-data.org...]
So they were discussing scientific data, not family business.
And we really don't know if in fact emails were deleted.
Again, this may ( I emphasize may) rise to the level of a crime
[Link: lawiscool.com...]

By the way, this New Zealand story has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the stolen CRU emails, and yet here come the deniers ranting about the stolen emails again -- ignoring the very clear evidence that the denial industry is deliberately lying about the science.

Probably illegal.
Though I understand that if it came from a "whistleblower" there may be some exception to that. Ironically, those exceptions were initially for those involved in exposure of threats to the environment.

I should have added that I am still a little concerned about some of what I have read in the CRU emails and notes in the data files. I just am not bothered that they discussed not wanting to share the raw data, I can fully understand why.

Wrong. A "whistleblower" is not someone who breaks the law, it's an employee who goes public with damaging information.

It's not a thief who steals data and releases it anonymously. And "whistleblower" laws do NOT protect against illegal activity.

The "whistleblower" would be protected under US laws if they had legitimate access to that data (ie. a CRU employee). Though the laws are convoluted.
If they are an outside hack, then they are clearly illegal.

Two emails from the Director of CRU involving more than a few people.
Sorry Charles, if you don't see that there is something wrong in the conduct of these scientists, then that is your prerogative.
To latch onto subjective adjective ( "enormous") doesn't clear up the real problem which is, who is lying and distorting data.

And by the way, the second email about deletion...was in reference to "AR4".
There is context. AR4 is: [Link: www.ipcc-data.org...]
So they were discussing scientific data, not family business.
And we really don't know if in fact emails were deleted.
Again, this may ( I emphasize may) rise to the level of a crime
[Link: lawiscool.com...]

If East Anglia is anything like most schools, emails are permanently logged for future reference in the event of criminal charges, civil lawsuits, etc. Deleting emails protects them from being hacked into and spread around, (assuming you get around to the deletion before the hackers hack in) but it doesn't outright erase the data.

Global Warming articles (or the spin the reporters put on the actual research) are so varied and often far-fetched, that I sometimes wonder if they are not attempts to "poison the well."
Less hyperbole and exaggeration would have made it much easier to learn about and examine what is happening to our climate. Such great hysteria and noise in general is being generated by both sides, that one can scarcely take either side seriously. That being said, I can see that; (through the mists of spittle, and the wails of doom, and the braying of the gored oxen) That we have indeed been pissing in our watering trough.

The new comment on data accessibility from Halldór Björnsson is worth reading.

The reasons for restricting access is often commercial, NMSs [ed.: National Meteorological Services] are often required by law to have substantial income from commercial sources, in other cases it can be for national security reasons, but in many cases (in my experience) the reasons simply seem to be “because we can”.

What has this got to do with CRU? The data that CRU needs for their data base comes from entities that restrict access to much of their data. And even better, since the UK has submitted an exception for additional data, some nations that otherwise would provide data without question will not provide data to the UK. I know this from experience, since my nation (Iceland) did send in such conditions and for years I had problem getting certain data from the US.

The ideal, that all data should be free and open is unfortunately not adhered to by a large portion of the meteorological community. Probably only a small portion of the CRU data is “locked” but the end effect is that all their data becomes closed.[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

If East Anglia is anything like most schools, emails are permanently logged for future reference in the event of criminal charges, civil lawsuits, etc. Deleting emails protects them from being hacked into and spread around, (assuming you get around to the deletion before the hackers hack in) but it doesn't outright erase the data.

More than half of what you delete on your HD isn't actually deleted. It's recoverable. I have an application that can do that.

Global Warming articles (or the spin the reporters put on the actual research) are so varied and often far-fetched, that I sometimes wonder if they are not attempts to "poison the well."
Less hyperbole and exaggeration would have made it much easier to learn about and examine what is happening to our climate. Such great hysteria and noise in general is being generated by both sides, that one can scarcely take either side seriously. That being said, I can see that; (through the mists of spittle, and the wails of doom, and the braying of the gored oxen) That we have indeed been pissing in our watering trough.

Global denier articles are invariably pushed by the very industries that will be affected by limiting CO2 emissions. Follow the money.

Could find no articles that claim global warming would lead to overpopulation in humans. I did find the inverse, of course.(that excessive population is causing GW) I was surprised with all the variety of claims, that this was not included.

More than half of what you delete on your HD isn't actually deleted. It's recoverable. I have an application that can do that.

It's more than that. The scientist could take a flamethrower to the computer and then shred the hard drive and throw it into the lake of lava on Mount Doom, and his emails would still be remotely archived...for future reference in case of criminal charges or civil lawsuits etc.

There's a thing that the deniers like to do. They hop from one subject to another, hoping that you see a connection when, in fact, they are unrelated. You post about the BS attacks on New Zealand scientists and deniers pop up shouting about CRU when, in fact, that has nothing to do with this. It's intellectual three card monte.

As did I. It was one of those condescending "I expected better out of you" comments I've seen for so many flouncers. The link to Gates of Vienna just makes it worse.

Speaking of the 1683 Siege of Vienna; check out the current issue of Military Heritage for a good summary of the war that followed and a excellent account of the battle on Zenta in 1697 that effectively ended the war. Its a good read for those interested in military history.

There's a thing that the deniers like to do. They hop from one subject to another, hoping that you see a connection when, in fact, they are unrelated. You post about the BS attacks on New Zealand scientists and deniers pop up shouting about CRU when, in fact, that has nothing to do with this. It's intellectual three card monte.

When I read this kind of stuff from deniers, it reminds me that sometimes I want to just say to friends of mine who buy into this "stuff" (being polite here), that "You wouldn't understand this. It's science after all." Snarky? Yep. But also sadly true many times.

If there is global warming, why did I freeze my ass off tonight? I was in shorts and a hoodie and it was 50 degrees and I had a cold beer in my hand. This is Florida. Shouldn't I be under water about now?
///

The deniers thoroughly lost me when they decided to ignore the stations that might have been reading warmer than they liked, while making no effort to find the sites that might have been giving an overly cool reading. I understood their game right at that point. That in no way indicates that I lost the ability to tell the difference between the rain and having my leg peed upon.

So, if we play the vids the Charles posts to prove AGW backwards, does their dog come home?

/bad country music joke

We can do replays like the NFL.

Look like they have a new meme however. From now on everything that is said about AGW they're going to come out with their CRU lied claim. Of course they're all yapping away and focusing on a couple of emails from Phil Jones. Nothing of substance.

If there is global warming, why did I freeze my ass off tonight? I was in shorts and a hoodie and it was 50 degrees and I had a cold beer in my hand. This is Florida. Shouldn't I be under water about now?
///

Global warming never said it couldn't get down toward 50 in Florida on the brink of December. Good grief. Climate change or not, there will still be some days that are colder than the recent average for that place and time of year.

Global warming never said it couldn't get down toward 50 in Florida on the brink of December. Good grief. Climate change or not, there will still be some days that are colder than the recent average for that place and time of year.

There is a tendency to jump directly from discussions of the science to scenarios of oppressive one-world governments cutting the population down to save the earth; so in a way, yes. For some people, engaging with the idea that AGW might be happening puts us on the road to hell.

You know what? Anyone at this point who doesn't believe that human industry over the past 300 years has not injected huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere above and beyond normal background levels is a stone idiot.

Over the past glacial cycles reaching back millions of years, CO2 levels haven't exceeded 300 ppm. We are now busting past 400 ppm. That 33% increase is just a blip on the graph, which is trending upward as we speak.

Man up. This is a critical problem. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re have stopped insuring long term investments in coastal areas worldwide.

This NZ Climate Science Coalition story looks like yet another example of how the blogs are imitating the worst behaviour of the vile MSM by eating each others turds.

The story gets posted somewhere, anywhere, and the rest rush to re-post it with a couple of minor revisions. No one thinks to fact check the original story, as long as it fits their agenda, they assume it is true.

That particular one knew what he was getting into coming here. If he respected you half as much as was assumed, he would have just excused himself from threads on this topic.

I fully expect Mr. Strata to recant any support of Charles he's given in the past (such as the post he made in support of Charles that put him on our radar to begin with) and join the Batshit Crazy Chorus® with Pam, Robert, RSM and other assorted "reality deniers"...sad, but it seems logical, given his comments.

Populations are greater in warmer climes. The poles, north and south, almost none. Humans thrive where plants and animals make themselves available for exploitation.

However huge population density currently exists in low-lying areas subject to enormous devastation from climate change (see: Bangladesh). Furthermore, as things warm you see increasing drought/flood cycles that reduce global crop yield and areas that were once verdant are turned fallow (see: the Australian state of Victoria)

Happy T-day lizards. I'm a relatively infrequent visitor here these days, and am a little surprised at the reaction to climate-gate. I guess I hold more-or-less to the Krauthammer agnostic position, dumping all the CO2 into the air can't be good, but a definitive link? I don't know. I abhor any dishonesty on the part of 'deniers', but I have long suspected that the "scientific consensus"/journals/peer-reviewed literature doesn't exactly have clean hands either- and recent developments show that ths is true. I'm all for cutting CO2 emissions, but the damage that has been done cannot be undone quickly- the CO2 is in our atmosphere. Pre-industrial-revolution levels will not return for eons even if artificial CO2 emssions stop tomorrow. And we don't know whether solar output will remain stagnant and trump whatever CO2 levels we do have. My view is that the "scientific community" has latched onto a subject that should be of concern, certainly, to all of humanity, but the potential seriousness of the issue does not take away from the fact that they do have an agenda, and they should lose some serious credibility.

Well, I hope you're wrong, and that someone would be able to maintain reasonable positions despite their unreasonable position on AGW, but the emotional manipulation ploy isn't making me real confident.

The greater blog-o-sphere, that universe of all blogs, magnifies human traits.

I suspect this is so because of all the inter-linking, which acts as its own sort of positive feedback loop.

Which means it isn't global warming which is in a run-a-way mode (contra the strawman of AJ), but the blog-o-sphere.

In this regards, LGF acts as a negative feedback, to constrain the system from running too far into nuttiness.

Furthermore, in this country there is a religiously-based opposition to any idea that America and Americans are just part of a larger group. American Exceptionalism has run amok, IMO, in that now the Exceptionalists believe we have to be different just to be different.

Happy T-day lizards. I'm a relatively infrequent visitor here these days, and am a little surprised at the reaction to climate-gate. I guess I hold more-or-less to the Krauthammer agnostic position, dumping all the CO2 into the air can't be good, but a definitive link? I don't know. I abhor any dishonesty on the part of 'deniers', but I have long suspected that the "scientific consensus"/journals/peer-reviewed literature doesn't exactly have clean hands either- and recent developments show that ths is true. I'm all for cutting CO2 emissions, but the damage that has been done cannot be undone quickly- the CO2 is in our atmosphere. Pre-industrial-revolution levels will not return for eons even if artificial CO2 emssions stop tomorrow. And we don't know whether solar output will remain stagnant and trump whatever CO2 levels we do have. My view is that the "scientific community" has latched onto a subject that should be of concern, certainly, to all of humanity, but the potential seriousness of the issue does not take away from the fact that they do have an agenda, and they should lose some serious credibility.

Ah, a "we can't do anything about it so let's not deal with it" denier.

The magic word? "Eons"

Golly! The CO2 that has been injected into our atmosphere has been injected, by and large, over the last 300 years. It'll take "eons" to remove it? You mean like the age of the dinosaurs?

Why do you say the current science can't make an accurate prediction? Please back up your answer with links to evidence.

Well we just don't know if they can make an accurate prediction. Since predictions are in the future and we're just here now. Who knows what might or might not be true. It's all just a giant mystery... Right? Ya know, ya know?

My high electric bill this year:$45
My high water/garbage bill:$20
My truck gets 23 MPG, but I like to walk to the store.
I run a filter system on my drinking water, therefore, no need for bottled water, delivered by trucks. And in plastic bottles.
I own enough clothes to do laundry only 3 times a month.
I rarely watch TV, so no power there.
I run 2-60 watt bulbs for about 5 hours a day.
I recycle.

My point? I use less resources then most. I don't know how I stack up to others, but I bet I do better then most.

And the one time I called AlGore a douche bag, I got the down ding flu. Well, I guess I'll get it again.
AlGore is a douche bag.

No, I'm not a denier. I just get pissed off when the cheerleaders play politics.

I have to think Mother Nature is having a good laugh with that example...there is little to be done at this point besides hunker down and wait and see...shifting massive amounts of wealth around the planet to non compliant nations is a farce...the population densities and their energy needs/ability to provide it will decide the outcome...we, as a society, can only do so much in a given time frame, and we are not even doing what we can...sqabbling is no solution

An acknowledgement of the inability of current science to "predict" something as massively complex as climate trends... That could lead to some unemployed scientists.

I wouldn't think so. I would think a need to refine would create a need for more scientists. Anyways- when you state the agenda as that, it's much less sinister sounding than just calling it an "agenda" and leaving one to conclude the "agenda" could be anything.

My high electric bill this year:$45
My high water/garbage bill:$20
My truck gets 23 MPG, but I like to walk to the store.
I run a filter system on my drinking water, therefore, no need for bottled water, delivered by trucks. And in plastic bottles.
I own enough clothes to do laundry only 3 times a month.
I rarely watch TV, so no power there.
I run 2-60 watt bulbs for about 5 hours a day.
I recycle.

My point? I use less resources then most. I don't know how I stack up to others, but I bet I do better then most.

And the one time I called AlGore a douche bag, I got the down ding flu. Well, I guess I'll get it again.
AlGore is a douche bag.

A little OT, but I'm coming to like Google Chrome (and I've also tried Safari 4 for Windows, as both as Webkit-based)...I love the font smoothing in Safari, but the bookmark management leaves something to be desired (which Chrome seems to be better at for me).

My high electric bill this year:$45
My high water/garbage bill:$20
My truck gets 23 MPG, but I like to walk to the store.
I run a filter system on my drinking water, therefore, no need for bottled water, delivered by trucks. And in plastic bottles.
I own enough clothes to do laundry only 3 times a month.
I rarely watch TV, so no power there.
I run 2-60 watt bulbs for about 5 hours a day.
I recycle.

My point? I use less resources then most. I don't know how I stack up to others, but I bet I do better then most.

And the one time I called AlGore a douche bag, I got the down ding flu. Well, I guess I'll get it again.
AlGore is a douche bag.

I am not pretending to know the answers. I am just stating that those who say they do know the answers, don't. A link that science can't predict future climate?- the last 10 years of fairly stable temperature have contradicted and baffled the alarmists. Hey- I'm not looking to pick a fight, nor am I suggesting that retrieving CO2 from the earth and pumping it into the atmosphere is 'good'- I am merely saying that those who claim to know with certainty what results will follow from this- well, they don't.

The greater blog-o-sphere, that universe of all blogs, magnifies human traits.

I suspect this is so because of all the inter-linking, which acts as its own sort of positive feedback loop.

Which means it isn't global warming which is in a run-a-way mode (contra the strawman of AJ), but the blog-o-sphere.

In this regards, LGF acts as a negative feedback, to constrain the system from running too far into nuttiness.

Furthermore, in this country there is a religiously-based opposition to any idea that America and Americans are just part of a larger group. American Exceptionalism has run amok, IMO, in that now the Exceptionalists believe we have to be different just to be different.

One of the symptoms is a reflection of both modern society and the dominance of the internet. While the internet can provide a fast and easy way to access information the corresponding result is that people target or focus their information to satisfy a precondition.

People in the case of AGW that will seek information and also happen to be anti-AGW will only focus their searching at sites the fulfill their preconceived ideas. In that sense they are not using is as an educational tool but as method of reinforcement.

It becomes isolated groupings of individuals that were already factionalized. The internet reinforces this and it is not ideologically specific as well as having a high occurrence of tribalism.

It's not real easy to publish a paper/book that says humankind is drastically altering the composition of the atmosphere, but I don't know what will result from this. Drawing a conclusion is more marketable.

A little OT, but I'm coming to like Google Chrome (and I've also tried Safari 4 for Windows, as both as Webkit-based)...I love the font smoothing in Safari, but the bookmark management leaves something to be desired (which Chrome seems to be better at for me).

This is why I have and use (and I'm constantly annoyed with this) four different browsers.

I like Chrome the best all-around but...

If I want things to look nice, I need to use Safari.
If I want to use certain plug-ins, I need to use Firefox.
If I need to log into Exchange or Sharepoint sites at work and expect full functionality, I need IE.

You can accurately predict a trend though, right? It need not be a binary.

I suppose...I guess I'm saying there are so many blind spots determining the climate that anything is possible, not that we should give up trying just because it's such an steep learning curve...there will be plenty that goes wrong before mankind ever figures it out...in the meantime we can start with nuclear power to reduce CO2, and some other obvious winners

I am not pretending to know the answers. I am just stating that those who say they do know the answers, don't. A link that science can't predict future climate?- the last 10 years of fairly stable temperature have contradicted and baffled the alarmists. Hey- I'm not looking to pick a fight, nor am I suggesting that retrieving CO2 from the earth and pumping it into the atmosphere is 'good'- I am merely saying that those who claim to know with certainty what results will follow from this- well, they don't.

Maybe not, but their prediction is the one that best fits the facts now in evidence, so that is the one we should use.

Last week it was revealed that 54 oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their fuel until prices have risen.

But that is not the only scandal in the shipping world. Today award-winning science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use.

As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.

You know the answers? Excuse me? How much, exactly, must humans reduce CO2 emissions to make an impact? If current emissions trends continue, what will the global mean temperature be in 2050? What exactly will solar output be in 2017? Oh, you don't know the answers? Then STFD and STFU.

My high electric bill this year:$45
My high water/garbage bill:$20
My truck gets 23 MPG, but I like to walk to the store.
I run a filter system on my drinking water, therefore, no need for bottled water, delivered by trucks. And in plastic bottles.
I own enough clothes to do laundry only 3 times a month.
I rarely watch TV, so no power there.
I run 2-60 watt bulbs for about 5 hours a day.
I recycle.

My point? I use less resources then most. I don't know how I stack up to others, but I bet I do better then most.

And the one time I called AlGore a douche bag, I got the down ding flu. Well, I guess I'll get it again.
AlGore is a douche bag.

Updinged the original post, although I disagree that Al Gore is a douche bag.

Is he absolutely more aware of the facts on AGW than you are? Booyah!

But you can gig him if you want. Free speech issue.

My take: Glenn Beck? Douche bag. Anyone at this point who has anything to do with Fox News, douche bag.

Hey- I'm not looking to pick a fight, nor am I suggesting that retrieving CO2 from the earth and pumping it into the atmosphere is 'good'- I am merely saying that those who claim to know with certainty what results will follow from this- well, they don't.

I'm sorry, but they do. CO2 traps and radiates heat. CO2 levels have increased. What do you think this means? You do not have to be a physicist to figure it out.

My high electric bill this year:$45
My high water/garbage bill:$20
My truck gets 23 MPG, but I like to walk to the store.
I run a filter system on my drinking water, therefore, no need for bottled water, delivered by trucks. And in plastic bottles.
I own enough clothes to do laundry only 3 times a month.
I rarely watch TV, so no power there.
I run 2-60 watt bulbs for about 5 hours a day.
I recycle.

My point? I use less resources then most. I don't know how I stack up to others, but I bet I do better then most.

And the one time I called AlGore a douche bag, I got the down ding flu. Well, I guess I'll get it again.
AlGore is a douche bag.

If we were to all pay attention & make an effort to reduce our energy consumption, where we could, I would bet the results would be amazing. Silly things, and old fashioned ideas. Turn the lights off, when you leave the room. Don't automatically turn the printer on, when you turn on the computer. Use smart surge protectors & turn the appliances totally off, when not in use.

And, if the manufacturers could get on the band wagon...
My washer has an "on" light that remains on, even when the wash is done, until the door is opened. Dishwasher has a "done" light that cannot be turned off. Etc...

My take: Glenn Beck? Douche bag. Anyone at this point who has anything to do with Fox News, douche bag.

FWIW - Walter was all over my ass last night for making a joke about Rush Limbaugh & Oxycontin. Saying basically that I was making nasty ad hominem attacks on individuals. I maintain he's a joke so he's fair game to mock - particularly in his hypocrisy.

Maybe not, but their prediction is the one that best fits the facts now in evidence, so that is the one we should use.

why not just move ahead and start doing what we can do to improve the situation...sitting around for decades fighting over who knows what is unproductive...we can forge ahead without wrecking our lifestyle

Wondering what kind of impact your power and fuel consumption have on the environment? ECOBOT helps you figure it out.

ECOBOT is a free, open-source application that calculates how much fuel, paper, and power you use during the course of a day to help keep you aware of how you can reduce your carbon footprint. The app tracks wireless networks you access to learn how much you're traveling, and logs how much paper you use whenever you use your printer.

ECOBOT also automatically calculates how much energy your computer uses, and you can manually add other appliances like video games and televisions.

So you flame out and then leave. I seem to be seeing that in several recent posts among a few others too. Methinks something's afoot. Perchance might you be trying to keep your flounce just under the official flounce level? Either way it sucks. If you want to argue about something stick around and be honest about it. This stuff is chickenshit.

You clearly stated you knew nothing and yet had alre: #124 Bacchus's daddy

You know the answers? Excuse me? How much, exactly, must humans reduce CO2 emissions to make an impact? If current emissions trends continue, what will the global mean temperature be in 2050? What exactly will solar output be in 2017? Oh, you don't know the answers? Then STFD and STFU.

I see no value in debating with someone who says:

I am not pretending to know the answers. I am just stating that those who say they do know the answers, don't.

Read up, educate yourself and do some research and thinking; then come back and ask for a debate. Until then, I can't be bothered to reply further.

So you flame out and then leave. I seem to be seeing that in several recent posts among a few others too. Methinks something's afoot. Perchance might you be trying to keep your flounce just under the official flounce level? Either way it sucks. If you want to argue about something stick around and be honest about it. This stuff is chickenshit.

parting shot?...he can do what he wants, some people don't like being called names

Please take this as a serious request for more information. I’ve been enjoying and learning from the posts on AGW for the past several months. Right now I consider myself to be a fence sitter. The outrageous comments and predictions from both sides of the issue leave me with a few basic questions.

Just what is the “normal” temperature of the earth and of the oceans? I suspect the “normal” temperature would be within a range of temperatures depending on specific locations on the earth or ocean. I’m quite sure a normal range of temperatures at the equator would be different from the range within the arctic region.

So, not knowing what’s normal, I can’t determine if the current rise in temperature is:
- Increasing from a below normal temperature to a higher temperature within the normal range of temperatures, or
- Increasing from the average temperature to a higher temperature within the normal range of temperatures, or
- Increasing from a temperature higher than normal but still within the normal range of temperatures, or
- Increasing from within the normal range of temperatures to a higher temperature above the normal range of temperatures.

Everywhere I look I find references that the global temperature and the predicted global temperatures are increasing to this degree or that degree. I just can’t find any base line data to determine the significance of these increases. For example, if earlier recorded base line temperatures were 1 or 2 degrees below normal then an increase of 1 or 2 or even 3-4 degrees may not be significant. On the other hand, if the current base line temperature is higher than normal and close to the upper limits within the normal range , an increase of a degree or two to may have a significant impact to the globe.

So, can anyone answer the question: “What is the “normal” temperature and normal range of temperatures for the earth and the oceans?”.

This is why I have and use (and I'm constantly annoyed with this) four different browsers.

I like Chrome the best all-around but...

If I want things to look nice, I need to use Safari.
If I want to use certain plug-ins, I need to use Firefox.
If I need to log into Exchange or Sharepoint sites at work and expect full functionality, I need IE.

This is borderline on infuriating. I feel like its 1996 again.

I'll be honest...while I've love Firefox, it's gotten a little soft around the middle since 2.x. While I like having plugins, Chrome and Safari are making me appreciate "less is more" again, especially since I'm having less JavaScript and Flash issues with them than with Firefox. I sympathize on having to use IE for Exchange Web Access, because I'm the same boat...basic functionality works in Chrome and Safari (as well as Firefox), but only IE renders it correctly.

Chrome is quickly becoming my favorite, especially with the JavaScript and security work that gone into it.

FWIW - Walter was all over my ass last night for making a joke about Rush Limbaugh & Oxycontin. Saying basically that I was making nasty ad hominem attacks on individuals. I maintain he's a joke so he's fair game to mock - particularly in his hypocrisy.

I'd love to say that his addictive tendencies should be treated as a disease and given latitude by his his listeners and the law.

However, there is the fact that he has, again and again, pushed for hard time for drug offenders because they have to face their "personal responsibility".

The term “temperature anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

There are reams and reams of data out there but, the quickest answer to your question is roughly as follows:

There is no single baseline temperature for the globe since there are colder areas and warmer areas. Instead, you look at the temperatures and gas makeup over long periods of time when humans have flourished, then you look at the delta from those temperatures - both in number & rate.

While NOAA’s National Weather Service will likely continue to publish “normal” temperature values, one needs to keep in mind that the “normal” is simply an average of all the values. It is possible that not even one of the input values is equal to the computed “normal,” and the most commonly occurring values may be significantly separated from the “normal”. This further underscores that, although it is interesting to know the “normal” or average temperature; it is probably more important to understand the distribution of the values used in computing the “normal,” which the ranges, standard deviation, variance and frequency distributions can relate.

I'm sorry, but they do. CO2 traps and radiates heat. CO2 levels have increased. What do you think this means? You do not have to be a physicist to figure it out.

Actually, even Michael Mann (hockey stick guy) says in his latest paper that his models couldn't predict the Medieval La Nina effect. And that further global warming might induce such a cooling current again in certain parts of the globe. So, no, probabilities favor the models being correct, but they are not 100% at this time.

we should accept what we do know and work toward some solutions...it's not a matter of how many degrees, or what model is more accurate than another...dumping excessive amounts of CO2 cannot be good...let's start there and get it lowered...lets work on how we eat and our food production...work toward education and grooming our young to take on this job...maybe I sound simplistic to people that want to debate numbers and curves, but I'm ordinary and concerned and willing...I am an army of one

I agree that we can all say what we want. No problem there. But there has been a new tendency among some newbies and a few oldbies to stoke the flames and then say g'nite right at the point they throw some flame worthy comment across the bow. If I choose a fight, which I rarely do, I stick around for the aftermath. It's the honorable thing to do. Otherwise I pass. Picking a fight and then leaving, esp. after saying something inflammatory, is, as I said, a chicken shit approach. Stand up for what you actually believe in.

I know enough to confess when I don't know the answers- which you don't apparently. You think you know that the earth is warming because that's what you've been told- that CO2 traps heat is the only variable in play. It isn't. We don't know all the variables in play. But climate science is not "debatable" around here it appears. Ironic- on one of the first posts I made around here, I was blasted, for defending Obama in spring of '08. Not supporting him exactly, but defending him, from what the doctrinaire consensus around here then was Honest debate is not served by pretending that climate science is settled, and that only data manipulators and big-oil-payees challenge the "consensus". The scientists themselves admit they don't know for sure how the climate will play out- for their acolytes to claim that "they know" is a sad statement.

The term “temperature anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

O.K. - what is the numerical reference value or long term average being used as bast line values?re: #161 Cineaste

There is no single baseline temperature for the globe since there are colder areas and warmer areas. Instead, you look at the temperatures and gas makeup over long periods of time when humans have flourished, then you look at the delta from those temperatures - both in number & rate.

Yes, I understand we're looking for deviations of temperatures and gas makeup over a long period of time. I'm just looking for the actual numerical numbers for averages and a range within the standard deviation.

I didn't say anything about the accuracy of the models. I'm well aware they're wrong, and not in our favor either. It doesn't change that CO2 traps and radiates heat and that CO2 levels in our atmosphere have risen. This will create warming, and that's pretty certain.

While NOAA’s National Weather Service will likely continue to publish “normal” temperature values, one needs to keep in mind that the “normal” is simply an average of all the values. It is possible that not even one of the input values is equal to the computed “normal,” and the most commonly occurring values may be significantly separated from the “normal”. This further underscores that, although it is interesting to know the “normal” or average temperature; it is probably more important to understand the distribution of the values used in computing the “normal,” which the ranges, standard deviation, variance and frequency distributions can relate.

Even this NOAA article is trying to steer me away from actual numbers and ranges.

The reason that AGW will have what most anyone would consider "negative" consequences isn't based on what is "normal".

Rather, the choice is how much change do you want to accept.

As I mentioned last night, this isn't about a Roland Emmerich-like disaster... there isn't a 2 minute countdown to a giant tidal wave coming.

What we have to deal with are the slow, but real, changes in precipitation patterns, ocean currents, and yes, eventually, sea level.

For example, what many people may not be aware of is that a bit over a year ago the cumulative negative effects on agriculture worldwide, not just from climate change but just a coincidental assortment of droughts and floods, brought world grain levels dangerously low. Enough so that the world's leading agricultural agencies were sounding very loud alarms. Given that there are around a half a billion people without enough food, there is very little slack in the world's agricultural system.

It may not matter to you if wheat production in Kansas falls because there is too little rain or too high of temperatures, or if corn production in Iowa falls because of too much rain in autumn... but it all adds up to problems for (and, in this case, subtracts quantitatively from) world grain reserves.

There are few people around here knowledgeable enough, or patient enough to obtain the knowledge, for a meaningful discussion of the actual science.

Normally what people argue about are mitigation policies.

Also, around here many of us are very sensitive to the cultural wars that have been raging in this country for some time. The current arguments about AGW are more about culture, IMO, than science, which is why I often put AGW spin-off links in the "culture" category.

Honest debate is not served by pretending that climate science is settled, and that only data manipulators and big-oil-payees challenge the "consensus". The scientists themselves admit they don't know for sure how the climate will play out- for their acolytes to claim that "they know" is a sad statement.

Thanks for the link. Although not a credentialed scientist, I do try to keep abreast of this matter and to read stuff from all sides. In case I haven't made it clear enough, I don't dispute "climate-change"- i.e., that human activity is altering the climate/atmosphere. I am, however, unsold on the notion that we know for certain what the effects of this will be, and whether we can know for certain that a significant natural (not human-caused) fluxuation in temperatures might be around the corner- up or down- of the sort that had scientists in the '70's contemplating ways to artificially heat the globe.

I don't deny that those who question climate-change "certainty" have some unsavoury bedfellows. :)

Political preferences often coalesce, not so strictly upon ideological "consistency", but upon the expediencies/ constituencies/ opportunism of the day. Hence, the 1960's Democrats who were in most ways liberal, but nonetheless retrograde on the notions of civil rights.

So, not knowing what’s normal, I can’t determine if the current rise in temperature is:
- Increasing from a below normal temperature to a higher temperature within the normal range of temperatures, or
- Increasing from the average temperature to a higher temperature within the normal range of temperatures, or
- Increasing from a temperature higher than normal but still within the normal range of temperatures, or
- Increasing from within the normal range of temperatures to a higher temperature above the normal range of temperatures.

I'm just looking for real numbers so in my own mind I can asses the impact if we are actually in a warming trend.

Dingy Harry has bet all his credentials against it (Yucca Mtn). To turn around and jump on the nuclear power option now would be a political death sentence for Harry.

I can't wait for conservatives to finally wise up and see the truth about Global Warming. Then perhaps we will get more effective action taken, and not a few stupid clunkers and a pile of feel-good offset credits.

Well if you don't dispute that humans are changing the climate and you acknowledge there is some possibility that those changes could be very damaging then shouldn't we strive to prevent those changes? it's the four quadrant argument.

Option 1: AGW is not real, We don't do anything - little cost, little downside, world is fine

Option 2: AGW is not real, we do something - some cost, some downside, world is fine

Option 3: AGW is real, we do something - some cost, little downside, world is fine

What percentage would you be comfortable attributing to scenario 4 to make not doing mitigation efforts a reasonable bet? For me, very low, perhaps .01%. Think of this as an environmental version of Cheney's 1% doctrine. If we are willing to take on a war if there is a 1% chance of a catastrophic attack, shouldn't we be equally willing to take on a massive challenge if there is a 1% chance of something else that would be catastrophic?

I can't wait for conservatives to finally wise up and see the truth about Global Warming. Then perhaps we will get more effective action taken, and not a few stupid clunkers and a pile of feel-good offset credits.

Sadly, I fear that we would see insane arguments about how this is God's will and the start of a coming apocalypse, hallelujah... Thank you Christian conservatives and your jesus camps.

Dingy Harry has bet all his credentials against it (Yucca Mtn). To turn around and jump on the nuclear power option now would be a political death sentence for Harry.

I can't wait for conservatives to finally wise up and see the truth about Global Warming. Then perhaps we will get more effective action taken, and not a few stupid clunkers and a pile of feel-good offset credits.

our govt is not fit to deal with the GW issue honestly...too many thieves and self centered crooks...we're fucked

Turns out the biggest threat of climate change is from mutating neutrinos.

Only thing worse, I guess, would be teenage mutant ninja neutrinos.

The dialogue is almost a refutation in itself of both creationism and intelligent design.
Would a transcendant power create beings capable of exuding such stilted phrases?
Could design be intelligent if it leads to such banality?
Guess the bust the budget on special effects, and couldn't hire Carrie Fisher to spiffy up the language.

What if AGW is real, we aggressively fight it, and then find out in 20 years that the sun is going into a protracted cycle of inactivity, and that we need to counteract it if we hope to keep a large percentage of the globe habitable?

I don't mean to be flip, but our postulating that controlling CO2 will necessarily stabilize warming temperatures, is not certain. Again, I'm not saying CO2 isn't a problem, and not saying that environmentally responsible measures are not good- I am saying- question the certainty with which some scientists arrive at their conclusions, and whether it is in their personal interest to be conclusive rather than uncertain.

I don't mean to be flip, but our postulating that controlling CO2 will necessarily stabilize warming temperatures, is not certain. Again, I'm not saying CO2 isn't a problem, and not saying that environmentally responsible measures are not good- I am saying- question the certainty with which some scientists arrive at their conclusions, and whether it is in their personal interest to be conclusive rather than uncertain.

I don't think anyone is saying that. They are saying we can try to neutralize our effect on the temperatures. That, I submit, is a good agenda. We shouldn't needlessly tip things one way or the other and it would seem that the evidence suggests that we are tipping things and that is a bad thing.

By the way, this New Zealand story has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the stolen CRU emails, and yet here come the deniers ranting about the stolen emails again -- ignoring the very clear evidence that the denial industry is deliberately lying about the science.

It's telling.

On this. I absolutely agree. Also, I carefully read all the information linked and I am convinced that Treadgold is being unreasonable. He is re-asking old, answered questions. The relationship with the CRU emails is strictly one of timing. He thinks he can surf on a wave of sentiment from a different issue. Posters here who bring up the CRU issue are falling for his cheap trick.

Charles, There does not need to be a large effort, it needs to be coordinated at key points to control the debate and control the story. Deleting emails is simple, and illegal and a sign they had to cover up something.

The base period around which anomolies are usually referenced is 1961-1990 or 1979-2001 and equates to a calculated global average of about 14 degrees C. Something like that anyway. There are two main reasons for this period: 1: The weather station record is quite complete. After this period the number of stations used by climatologists decreases substantially but I'm not sure if this is by choice or due to problems with the siting and data recording. Some regions like Russia and Africa pretty much drop of the map as far as incoming data is concerned.(Canada too I think. Seems to be a post-Cold War disinterest in watching the weather.) 2. For base periods starting at 1979 that is when the satellite records for ice extent, temperature etc begin so you can make direct comparisons with data recorded at the surface and data recorded from space.

But is it statistically sound to not keep the average up to date? That is a bone of contention. Excluding the last 10 or 20 years of data naturally exaggerates the current 'anomoly' but including the last 10 or 20 years of patchy data would make the base period less sound. That latter argument is a double edged sword though - if the last 10-20 years of data is too patchy to include in the average is it still appropriate to use that patchy data at all?

Denier? Nice emotional outburst there CJ. I can (and would be happy to) show you point by point where the alarmists (and I just use that for short hand) science is in trouble and unproven.

I mentioned before two things which I, as someone who does have to create, review and sanction mission critical, human rated systems for NASA and DoD, found completely lacking. One is the error budget, which I laid out here and here to show by their own numbers cannot detect the claimed warming to the claimed accuracy. In this I identify the mathematical steps which will expand the uncertainty of the raw measurement, then link to a CRU report where they too lay out their uncertainty. There is no 'denying' this, it is simple fact.

The other thing I noted here many weeks ago was the shoddy quality of PhD level code. I have worked with these PhD's many times on real science missions for NASA. I am one of the few engineers invited onto science panels to review the science as well as the mission design and plan. I have challenged my fair share, in a constructive manner to better refine the quality and detect serious shortfalls. Not too many people can claim that experience. So I was not out on a limb when I predicted their code was shoddy, and then the code comes out and my speculation was proven write. See here, but more than that go read the HARRY_READ_ME file.

I dare you to apply your powers of insight and experience on this matter, and I ask you, would you bet the lives of your family on this mess? And I dare you to stop acting on global warming the way creationists act about evolution and real science. Real scientists appreciate people testing and challenging their ideas and methods. Most experienced engineers and scientists are busy people who rarely take the time to bestow such an honor. Which is how this mess was allowed to grow unchallenged for so long.

And by the way -- NO DATA was actually destroyed. I'm sure Phil Jones regrets writing that email, now that it's being distorted like crazy, but the fact is that he was just mouthing off.

Do we know that for a fact? Since they are reluctant to release the data how does the general populace know that none of the data has been deleted?

Are they sharing with you Charles?

Why such push back to the "suggestion" that it might be a good idea to have an open review of all the data? If there is nothing to hide...on either side...then the data should be put in the public forum.

You might do better to convince people of what you say were you to drop fallacious arguments like appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks and strawmen.

LOL - no strawmen there. All provable arguments. No ad hominem either. What I know from doing this professionally is people don't like to be challenged, which is the whole point of the scientific process. If their feelings are hurt they are in the wrong business.

This crowd are not true or respectable scientists. And there are thousands of true respectable scientists who are disgusted with their actions and will make corrections.

Wrong. It is DEFINITELY illegal to steal the contents of a private email server.

And a "whistleblower" is not someone who breaks the law, it's an employee who goes public with damaging information.

It's not a thief who steals data and releases it anonymously. And "whistleblower" laws are NOT a license to commit crimes.

And the 'defacto' proof of where these e-mails 'came from' IS? Charles, you take CaptDigg's "probably" comment (because he is leaving the window...small though it may be) and turn it into a definite... If someone broke into an e-mail server from the outside then it is illegal based on on the laws of where that server is located, so if you are versed in UK law...all well and good. I am not and wont purport to know exactly what was and was not illegal.

And, for such a "nontroversy" this is getting plenty of airplay...not just from the "deniers". Amazing how quickly someone who has a different view, or even tries to foster positive discourse, becomes labeled a "denier"...and before you jump on that, I'm not using it in a broad sweeping sense...but take it however you will.

I do not believe in AGW...I DO belive in natural climate change (god knows the planet has been going through it for 4.5 Billion years) and I do believe that humans are having some effect.

Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving...my belt is two notches looser this morning. :)

Guess what, everybody? Global warming is real. And it's natural. It's been happening since the last ice age. And we'll have more ice ages. We've had many.
Can humans influence the world's climate to cause our own doom? I think that's the main question. Throwing around snippets of climate "facts" only proves that the earth is constantly changing as it has done for millions of years.
Let the investigations begin!
Rather than knee jerk responses to the scientific "consensus" (what the hell does THAT mean anyway), there should be a systematic look at the facts and the methods employed to arrive at this great "truth".
All I see is a massive wave of new taxation in response to CO increases.
If you can't see that as suspicious, I have a bridge to sell you.
What really gets me angry is that if this IS a scam, it takes resources away from real issues such as general pollution spewing into the air which actually causes health problems.

Without alleging conspiracies, lies, or anything else, my concern about the defense of the temperature adjustments (perhaps someone can point me to the answer):

I understand that the raw data probably does not tell the full story. I understand the need for data adjustment in most cases. However, if these adjustments (mostly down in early years, mostly up in late years) are in fact accurate, that means we were systematically overestimating older temperature data and systematically underestimating newer temperatures.

Why has this been happening? Why would old temperatures come in too high, and new ones too low, necessitating the adjustments that give fuel to skeptics like those in the article?

Without alleging conspiracies, lies, or anything else, my concern about the defense of the temperature adjustments (perhaps someone can point me to the answer):

I understand that the raw data probably does not tell the full story. I understand the need for data adjustment in most cases. However, if these adjustments (mostly down in early years, mostly up in late years) are in fact accurate, that means we were systematically overestimating older temperature data and systematically underestimating newer temperatures.

Why has this been happening? Why would old temperatures come in too high, and new ones too low, necessitating the adjustments that give fuel to skeptics like those in the article?

You didn't bother to read the article did you? They are very plain about the adjustments. The temperature monitoring stations were moved at various points - some were closed and others were opened. These scientists, when they looked at the data, realized that the temperatures being recorded were not recorded at the same elevation. The oldest block of temperatures were recorded near sea level, the next chunk were recorded 124 meters above sea level. Temperatures drop when you rise in elevation so you have to offset the data (either slightly lower the old data or slightly raise the new data). They calculated the amount of the offset by looking at the average variation during overlap years. For several years both monitoring stations were open and they compared the data from each and saw the average difference and applied that to the old data set.

However, if these adjustments (mostly down in early years, mostly up in late years) are in fact accurate, that means we were systematically overestimating older temperature data and systematically underestimating newer temperatures.

Also - nobody was estimating any temperatures. These were all based on recorded temperatures.

You didn't bother to read the article did you? They are very plain about the adjustments. The temperature monitoring stations were moved at various points - some were closed and others were opened. These scientists, when they looked at the data, realized that the temperatures being recorded were not recorded at the same elevation. The oldest block of temperatures were recorded near sea level, the next chunk were recorded 124 meters above sea level. Temperatures drop when you rise in elevation so you have to offset the data (either slightly lower the old data or slightly raise the new data). They calculated the amount of the offset by looking at the average variation during overlap years. For several years both monitoring stations were open and they compared the data from each and saw the average difference and applied that to the old data set.

Actually I did read the article and there's no need to sneer at me. I said that I understand adjustments. I have an analytical career and do similar calculations all the time. However, I am not seeing evidence of a one-off adjustment based on moving a station, but rather what appears to be a complex formula that tends to adjust old temperatures down and new temperatures up. I also am going to have to look for what was used as a control in order to properly ground the difference between 0m and 124m, or whatever the move(s) were.

You can't just move the station, see a drop in temperatures, and subtract it out (which clearly NIWA has not done, as I said the formula is more complex). What you do need to do is leave something behind at 0m to establish a forward baseline against which to evaluate the new, 124m station, otherwise you can't distinguish between the changes due to the move and actual changes in temperature. I presume something like this was done, but I haven't read anything about it yet. I would be concerned if the adjustments were made simply based on some global constant linking the two altitudes, this would ignore all kinds of local effects.

I suppose the systematic nature of the adjustments could be due to station moves generally being from lower to higher altitudes. I don't know enough about them to speculate on why this would be the case, but it might explain a lot of the variation (and the adjustments would be completely defensible assuming the existence of proper controls).

You can't just move the station, see a drop in temperatures, and subtract it out (which clearly NIWA has not done, as I said the formula is more complex). What you do need to do is leave something behind at 0m to establish a forward baseline against which to evaluate the new, 124m station, otherwise you can't distinguish between the changes due to the move and actual changes in temperature. I presume something like this was done, but I haven't read anything about it yet. I would be concerned if the adjustments were made simply based on some global constant linking the two altitudes, this would ignore all kinds of local effects.

I suppose the systematic nature of the adjustments could be due to station moves generally being from lower to higher altitudes. I don't know enough about them to speculate on why this would be the case, but it might explain a lot of the variation (and the adjustments would be completely defensible assuming the existence of proper controls).

Well again, you didn't read either what they wrote nor what I wrote. They did have a baseline for the specific offset because, as I wrote:

They calculated the amount of the offset by looking at the average variation during overlap years. For several years both monitoring stations were open and they compared the data from each and saw the average difference and applied that to the old data set.

To say, "to disagree with global warming does not make you a Palinista or Right winger" is a strawman, because Charles has never stated anything like that. And this:

For those of us who stood by you on Rathergate, while your credibility was attacked by folks who don't know why you made sense, you should realize there are some of us just as insightful and trained to detect bad assumptions, questionable massaging, unfounded theories on global climate.

Emotionally manipulative and again- you make assumptions about Charles that he hasn't realized something, when the truth is you have no idea, so you erect another strawman.

As for telling Charles he's the one having an emotional outburst, I think you're projecting. Or perhaps you're just angry your emotional manipulations didn't work?

But please- do tell me how you will prove these two points of your original comment, since you said "All provable arguments". Prove away! If you're incapable of such, then you might want to stick to facts with data to support them instead of imagining the thoughts, feelings, and motivations of others.

What if AGW is real, we aggressively fight it, and then find out in 20 years that the sun is going into a protracted cycle of inactivity, and that we need to counteract it if we hope to keep a large percentage of the globe habitable?

Or... what if AGW is real, we aggressively fight it, we reverse the CO2 levels in the atmosphere only to discover a giant meteor is about to annihilate the earth and it was all for nothing?!

As I said, I was operating on the assumption that that's exactly what they did. I didn't see that portion of your comment.

I'm still trying to back out how this results in the differing adjustments over time, rather than a simple shift in the data level. Maybe what I'm seeing is the 7 different shifts kicking in at different times, when the stations were moved (I assume all 7 were moved since they are all being adjusted, 6 up and 1 down).

All in all though, I would have been more likely to read your comment more thoroughly if you'd been a little more polite in your opening statement. I am not here slinging mud or calling anyone a liar, just trying to better comprehend the issue. It does not benefit adherents of either side of this debate to be aggressive towards those who are asking good faith questions and trying to dig into the data, rather than the rhetoric, for answers.

I'm sure that won't stop people from being aggressive, of course. It's useless, but it never stops. Thank you for pointing out the overlap information, however. That was helpful.

The reason they do not want to release the raw data is because interpreting the tree ring cores is a pretty exotic and specialized field. If they give the deniers all of their raw data you will just end up with a lot of articles like the one this thread is about. Those without the knowledge or experience to properly correct and interpret the data will be making claims that it shows different results to them than what has been reported by CRU.

I understand why they don't want to share raw, uncorrected, and uninterpreted data. When peer reviewed articles are published they explain via footnote any correction factors that have been applied to the data, the fact it has been altered from it's raw state is not a secret.

They really aren't hiding anything because they want to horde it to themselves. They are keeping the raw field data out of the hands of those that would misuse it or simply lie about it for personal and political gain.

Isn't it true that the whole idea of the scientific method is for raw data to be available for others to either replicate or disprove theories.

Well, charles, the determination of who is a protected whistleblower is usually left up to the courts to decide.
The UK has one of the more liberal whistleblower protection laws ( [Link: www.opsi.gov.uk...] ).
In the US under Sarbanes-Oxley the anonymous disclosure of data is protected ( [Link: www.dataprotection.ie...] ) under "whistleblower" laws, as long as the data is not personal and related to the crime or deceit being reported.

I have no idea who did it, neither do you. But what seems clear is that when I suggest that there be a comprehensive investigation into all of this, you and some others get quite defensive.
If no wrong doing was done by Jones, et al, at CRU, then there is no need to fear such an investigation.
As I said, let the chips fall where they may, and the charlatans be exposed.

Well, charles, the determination of who is a protected whistleblower is usually left up to the courts to decide.
The UK has one of the more liberal whistleblower protection laws ( [Link: www.opsi.gov.uk...] ).
In the US under Sarbanes-Oxley the anonymous disclosure of data is protected ( [Link: www.dataprotection.ie...] ) under "whistleblower" laws, as long as the data is not personal and related to the crime or deceit being reported.

I have no idea who did it, neither do you. But what seems clear is that when I suggest that there be a comprehensive investigation into all of this, you and some others get quite defensive.
If no wrong doing was done by Jones, et al, at CRU, then there is no need to fear such an investigation.
As I said, let the chips fall where they may, and the charlatans be exposed.

"Defensive?" Not at all. My attitude is "dismissive." This story is so insignificant, the denial industry should be embarrassed as much as (or more than) the CRU scientists.

Actually I did read the article and there's no need to sneer at me. I said that I understand adjustments. I have an analytical career and do similar calculations all the time. However, I am not seeing evidence of a one-off adjustment based on moving a station, but rather what appears to be a complex formula that tends to adjust old temperatures down and new temperatures up. I also am going to have to look for what was used as a control in order to properly ground the difference between 0m and 124m, or whatever the move(s) were.

You can't just move the station, see a drop in temperatures, and subtract it out (which clearly NIWA has not done, as I said the formula is more complex). What you do need to do is leave something behind at 0m to establish a forward baseline against which to evaluate the new, 124m station, otherwise you can't distinguish between the changes due to the move and actual changes in temperature. I presume something like this was done, but I haven't read anything about it yet. I would be concerned if the adjustments were made simply based on some global constant linking the two altitudes, this would ignore all kinds of local effects.

I suppose the systematic nature of the adjustments could be due to station moves generally being from lower to higher altitudes. I don't know enough about them to speculate on why this would be the case, but it might explain a lot of the variation (and the adjustments would be completely defensible assuming the existence of proper controls).

"Defensive?" Not at all. My attitude is "dismissive." This story is so insignificant, the denial industry should be embarrassed as much as (or more than) the CRU scientists.

That may be your opinion, but when a scientist urges other to delete emails, and says quite clearly they will delete information rather than divulge, in full recognition of the law requiring such disclosure, then it should be investigated.
I happen to agree with Cato in the above post. I think both sides are lying, so I'd like to see an investigation clear it all up.

If I close my eyes all this stuff seems sounds identical to someone asking "where are the intermediate fossils? Where is the data?", stated by a few, very few, mostly self declared, scientists.

The usual deniers who can do nothing but deny. They produce no data, but only mine the work of others to find alleged items of fraud or error, then they publish but not for review by scientists (who are becoming the whipping posts of the age), but by the uneducated public and the conspiracy buffs of the MSM who think it is all a communist conspiracy by politicians.

We have a few emails that can be interpreted either to be written by a fallible human (not the Pope of AGW), or taken out of context, and we have equipment readings of the past few years that are found to be wrong, but can be adjusted on a rational basis to correct for the earlier measurements, and this becomes a smoking gun!

That may be your opinion, but when a scientist urges other to delete emails, and says quite clearly they will delete information rather than divulge, in full recognition of the law requiring such disclosure, then it should be investigated.

And yet, here you are trying to make excuses for whoever STOLE the emails, which is a very clear illegal act, not even debatable.

I'm making no excuses.
If any illegal act was done, let them be prosecuted.
But I also say the same about Jones and any staff at CRU who may have violated the law.

The only people accusing anyone at CRU of "breaking the law" are the denialists. Phil Jones may end up resigning because of this, just for political reasons, but no scientist is going to be "prosecuted" for anything. That's just ludicrous.

...The usual deniers who can do nothing but deny. They produce no data, but only mine the work of others of others to find alleged items of fraud or error...

That's been my observation for a while now. They have the data in many cases that is essentially shared. For instance the NOAA and NASA data is relatively easy to acquire. However, their main objective is to find errors in the works of others while providing nothing approaching scientific theories.

This is rather surprising considering that many of the anti-AGW proponents are part of industry front groups well supported by the oil, gas, energy, mining and other applicable industries. The funding they receive could be used for their own science but it is not.

The Heartland Institute and others are not known for their scientific abilities. They are however known for saying that "smoking is harmless" and a variety of other PR campaigns.

Your text to link...How to Forge a Consensus
The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

Is that the best you can provide? How about you link to actual science to argue AGW?
/That was rhetorical, since you probably think science is one, all encompassing conspiracy that is never to be trusted.

If I close my eyes all this stuff seems sounds identical to someone asking "where are the intermediate fossils? Where is the data?", stated by a few, very few, mostly self declared, scientists.

The usual deniers who can do nothing but deny. They produce no data, but only mine the work of others to find alleged items of fraud or error, then they publish but not for review by scientists (who are becoming the whipping posts of the age), but by the uneducated public and the conspiracy buffs of the MSM who think it is all a communist conspiracy by politicians.

We have a few emails that can be interpreted either to be written by a fallible human (not the Pope of AGW), or taken out of context, and we have equipment readings of the past few years that are found to be wrong, but can be adjusted on a rational basis to correct for the earlier measurements, and this becomes a smoking gun!

The Da Vinci Code has nothing on the scope of THIS conspiracy./

I used to believe that people who accused Republicans and the right wing of being "anti-science" were exaggerating for partisan reasons.

I no longer believe this. It's incredibly clear that there's a sizeable element of conservatives who have no respect at all for science or scientists, and will gladly distort, lie, and spread confusion about scientific issues, often deliberately with full knowledge of what they're doing. The story at the top of this thread is an excellent example, but it's FAR from the only example.

You're right -- there's a very marked similarity between the methods and tactics of creationists, and those of the climate denial industry. And that's not just a coincidence -- they're often the same people too. For example, climate denier Roy Spencer.

Your text to link...How to Forge a Consensus
The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

I think the key word here is "impression." Yes, it looks bad. That's the problem with this "nontroversy," it is too "catchy." That is, it will be a big deal whether or not it deserves to be one.

For example, the next time someone considers funding for a CRU project, this will be part of the discussion. Since lots of good causes/projects compete for funds, this will matter. The guys who make funding decisions tend to be pusillanimous and funding CRU will now take at least a drop of courage/competence/confidence.

In my experience with funding issues, any excuse to exclude one choice is the easy way out for the decision maker. I'm quite sure that Phil Jones knows this environment extremely well and I suspect he will sacrifice himself rather than watch the CRU's budget take the hit. But Phil's resignation may not save the day. The CRU is in real jeopardy.

You know what is so funny, is the pathetic reaction to my "I thought better" of CJ and my honest reminder how I and many others stood by him on Rathergate when many people tried to impugn him. It seems everyone found it insulting!

Which is another way of saying painfully on target.

Oh well, zealots have lots of things in common - and I still find alarmists right up there with creationists and. scientologists. I'll stick with math, science and precedence. They are less flighty allies

You are absolutely correct. The cons have a vast irrational fear and hate of science. But the left has a vast fear and hate of them too (like when you note biology is quite clear on when a human individual is created/conceived).

So CJ - did you read my articles or blow them off in a fit of denying some math and science???

So CJ - did you read my articles or blow them off in a fit of denying some math and science???

Careful, AJ. You're starting to sound a little emotional here. Overuse of punctuation is a giveaway.

Which articles of yours was I supposed to read and be enlightened by? The one where you try to argue that the source code in that package of stolen data reveals something fundamental about global warming? I read it, and honestly, I think it was a little pathetic; "grasping at straws" is the phrase that occurs to me.

What's in that package of stolen data is exactly what the thief wanted you to see, and nothing more. It was cherry-picked to find the stuff they thought was the most damaging, and presented to the denial community completely devoid of context -- just the way they like it.

If you think that one program is the sum total of what happens at CRU, you're dreaming.

What was pathetic was you undermining your own honor by using your principled defense of someone else as a means to emotionally manipulate that same person. You cheapened your own character, and you don't seem to realize this. I also see you laughing off the arguments posted to you to be shallow attempts to conceal the fact you have nothing with which to counter them.

(BTW- some folks have stood by Charles since Rathergate and have never felt the need to use their support as a manipulation tool to use against him when they disagree with him on other points. Tacky.)

LOL! the thief put the data out I wanted to see! Really - and how do you know what I wanted to see? To be honest, the moment someone comes up with sound data I am on board - I don't have a dog in this hunt.

Too funny. The data is as genuine as the emails, which nobody in CRU is denying. So Charles, keep the blinders on - won't change what happens in the real world. What will happen is already happening and cannot be diverted. The scrutiny will come, the real scientists will test the theories and find them wanting (this is not speculation, I have been doing this too many years now). And we will find the data is too noisy to make any determination.

Recall momentum with a large vector and how much force is required to change it, let alone reverse it.

What concerns me more about this issue is that the politicians are using this as an excuse to implement things with a Cost/Benefit ratio that is WAY beyond unreasonable, unless you factor in political advantage and payoffs to their backers in the benefit side.

Imagine a possible abuse in Cap and Trade. Say Company X contributes a lot to Candidate Y's campaign, Then, after the election, Y sees to it that company X has more than enough credits assigned to them, so they have plenty of spares to sell on the artificial market.

Pollution is always bad, but we should choose our battles a bit more carefully to get the most bang for the buck fighting them.